Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Dabas vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 August, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.4367/2012 Order Reserved on: 04.07.2013 Order pronounced on 08.08.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) Amit Dabas s/o Shri Balbir Singh Roll No.11011447 r/o D-1/89, IInd Floor Sector 11 Rohini Delhi 110 085. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri R.K.Shukla) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat I.P.Estate New Delhi. The Chairman Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board Government of N.C.T. of Delhi FC 18, Institutional Area Karkardooma Delhi 110 092. The Secretary Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board Government of N.C.T. of Delhi FC 18, Institutional Area Karkardooma Delhi 110 092; and The Director of Education Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Old Secretariat 5, Sham Nath Marg Delhi 110 054. Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi) O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of judgement dated 15.09.2008 passed in various Original Applications (Annexure A2) and examine the case of the applicant if he is found similarly placed persons like judgement dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure A2) he may be offered the post of TGT Hindi (Male) under OBC Category extending the benefits of judgment dated 5.9.2008 in accordance with law.
To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the aforesaid post in terms of judgment dated 15.9.2008 and he may be given consequential benefits accordingly.
To allow the original application with all consequential benefits.
To pass any other and further order which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. The applicant belongs to OBC category and passed B.A. Degree with Hindi as his main subject. In pursuance of a Notification/Advertisement No.6/2006, of the respondents-DSSSB for filling up of the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) and Trained Graduated Teachers (TGTs), he applied for the post of TGT-Hindi (Male) [Post Code No.110/2006]. As per the said Advertisement, a total of 206 posts of TGT Hindi (Male) were sought to be filled up and out of the same, 55 posts were reserved for OBC candidates.
3. The essential educational qualifications prescribed for TGT-Hindi (Male) [Post Code No.110/2006] are as under:
i) B.A. (Hons.) in one of the Modern Indian Language (MIL) concerned or B.A. with MIL concerned as one of the elective subjects from a recognized University having 45% marks in aggregate with additional language or one school subject at Degree level. OR Equivalent Oriental Degree in MIL concerned from a recognized University having 45% marks in aggregate OR (for appointment of Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya Rattan or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation. Provided further that the requirement to minimum of 45% marks in aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of (a) candidates who possess a post graduate qualification in MIL concerned from a recognized University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically Handicapped candidates.
(ii) Degree/Diploma in training/Education or Senior Anglo Vernacular (SAV) Certificates.
(iii) Working knowledge of Hindi.
4. The applicant was allotted Roll No.11011447 and in both the preliminary and main examinations he was declared successful and was awarded 163.25 marks out of 400, whereas the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under OBC category is 140.75 but though others were selected and appointed, he was denied the same, on the ground that he did not possess the Graduation Degree with Hindi subject as an `elective subject as required under the notification which was issued in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules.
5. It is stated that in the similar circumstances, i.e., where the requirement under the Recruitment Rules was to possess a Bachelor Degree with an `elective subject in respect of the posts of TGT-English, the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.2576/2002 in Saroj Rana and Anr. V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others decided on 25.07.2008, by placing reliance on a Corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 of the Directorate of Education, Establishment-III Branch of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, held that `elective subject specified in the RRs would be interpreted so as to include passing of the concerned subject by the candidate in all the years/semesters of Graduation with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject as the case may be.
6. Some of the persons similarly situated like the applicant, i.e., the persons belongs to OBC category and who applied and passed the required tests for the posts of TGT-Hindi, in pursuance of the same Advertisement No.6/2006 and whose cases were rejected for appointment on the ground that they were not possessing the Degree with Hindi as an `elective subject, filed OA No.1054/2008 and batch. This Tribunal by its common Judgement dated 15.09.2008, following the Judgement of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Saroj Rana & Anr.s case (supra) and also placing reliance on the Cabinet Decision No.242 dated 02.05.1997 and Corrigendum dated 14.03.2002, declared that the applicants therein are eligible and accordingly allowed the OAs by directing the Respondent DSSSB to declare the results of the applicants therein and to offer them appointment to the posts for which they applied, if they are otherwise find place in merit commensurate to the available seats in their respective categories. The said Judgement has become final and complied with by the respondents.
7. The applicant seeking to extend the benefit of the Judgement dated 15.09.2008 in OA No.1054/2008 and batch (supra) since he is also similarly placed like the applicants in the said OAs.
8. The respondents filed reply wherein though they have not seriously disputed the aforesaid facts as stated by the applicant but strenuously submit that the OA is liable to be dismissed for the grounds of delay and latches. They further submit that entertaining the delayed application of the applicant would open a pandora box and no selection would ever come to an end. It is also submitted that the applicant miserably failed to give any valid reasons for the delay in filing the OA.
9. Heard both the counsel and have been gone through the pleadings on record.
10. The respondents have not denied the common Judgement dated 15.09.2008 of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 and batch (supra), and the fact that the applicant is also similarly situated like the applicants in the said OA, except that he is not entitled for extending the benefit of the said Judgement on the ground of abnormal and unexplained delay in preferring the present OA.
11. Shri R.K.Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Tribunal in its common Judgement dated 15.09.2008 in OA No.1054/2008 and batch (supra), by following the Judgement of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.2576/2002 in Saroj Rana and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, dated 25.07.2008, declared the law by interpreting the words `elective subject of the Recruitment Rules that they include passing of the concerned subject by the candidate in all the years/semesters of Graduation with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester the concerned teaching subject as the case may be. The said judgement was not only explained the fact situation but also declared the law on the subject. Hence, it is a judgement in rem and is applicable to all the similarly situated persons like the applicant. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgement dated 26.07.2011 in OA No.1915/2010 of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in support of his contention. In the said Judgement, when increments during the periods between 1981 to 2.11.1993 were denied to the applicants therein, they preferred the said OA in the year 2011 seeking extension of the benefit of a judgement dated 25.09.2007 of the Honble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, and by applying the principles laid down in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass and Others, (2011) 1 SLJ SC 472, this Tribunal allowed the said OA.
12. Per contra, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the subject recruitment is pertaining to the year 2006 and before filing the present OA in the year 2012, he never agitated or represented at any time before any forum whatsoever. Neither the applicant filed any condonation of delay petition along with the OA nor given any valid reason/explanation for his silence from the date of the rejection of his candidature till the filing of the OA. It is further submitted that since the entire selection process in respect of the said Advertisement No.06/2006 has been completed and all the vacancies were filled up from the eligible candidates, the application forms and other records of the non-selected candidates, including the applicant, were already stand weeded out, as such at this belated stage the relief sought by the applicant cannot be granted. She further submits that even the recruitments for the post of TGT Hindi (Male) for the subsequent years have also been finalized and results have been declared and in view of the abnormal and unexplained delay the OA is liable to be dismissed.
13. It is trite that the Courts have held, those who do not come to court need not be at a disadvantage to those who rushed to here, and if they are otherwise similarly situated they are entitled for similar treatment if by no one else at the hands of the Court. [ See: Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SLR 248; K. I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and K.T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, (2006) 9 SCC 406].
14. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalita, (2006) 2 SCC 747 it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. In Gulam Rasul Lone v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2009) 15 SCC 321, the Honble Supreme Court held that it is no way trite law that where the Writ Petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, relief(s) prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and latches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the Judgement.
15. However, in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 it was held that no Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights. In Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., AIR 2011 SC 1199 the Honble Apex Court was held that the concepts such as `liberal approach, `justice oriented approach, `substantial justice, cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay.
16. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors., 2011 (1) SLJ SC 472, on which the learned counsel placed reliance, the Honble Apex Court at paras 13 and 14 held as follows:
13. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances:
(a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees;
(b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not;
(c) where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and
(d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court.
14. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the fence-sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others
17. The conspectus of the above case law reveals that though the persons who are similarly situated but not approached the Court at the proper point of time are also entitled for the benefit of the Judgement passed in respect of similarly situated persons, but the same is subject to satisfy the Court with valid and justifiable reasons. The Court would exercise its discretionary power of condoning the delay if there is proper justification for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time and that while exercising the said discretion, the Courts should not lost sight of the fact that said discretion upset or interfere with the rights which had accrued to others in the interregnum.
18. In the present case as rightly submitted by the respondents that the applicant neither filed any application seeking condonation of delay nor given any valid reason for not approaching the Tribunal within the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
19. It is not disputed that the respondents declared the results and denied the selection and consequential appointment to the applicant in the year 2008 itself. Even the Judgement in OA No.1054/2008 and batch (supra), the benefit of which, the applicant is seeking to extend, is dated 15.09.2008. The applicant made the representation, for the first time, only in December, 2012. Though the applicant was denied appointment in the year 2008, he sought for relevant information under the RTI Act, 2005 also in the year 2012 only. Therefore, it is evident that before he came to know about the Judgment of this Tribunal, in the year 2012 he has not taken any steps or agitated before any forum about his non-selection. The applicant miserably failed to state any reason or explanation for the delay occurred between 03.04.2008, i.e., the date on which the results were declared, and October, 2012, i.e., in which month he came to know about the Judgement of this Tribunal (as stated by him in Annexure A1 (Colly.) representation dated 05.12.2012) in OA No.1054/2008 and batch (supra). Further, the entire selection process came to an end long back and that the vacancy was filled up with another person on whom certain rights have already been accrued upon.
20. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( V. N. Gaur ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/